What makes an All Time Great?

[Silkeyjoe]

Good Thread in light of all the recent talk. IMO , to be an ATG, the 1st requirement is to be the best in your Division for a decent period of time, or to have beaten someone who is the the best in the division and then continued to show that form . It's a phrase that's banded around all too often nowadays and I don't necessarily see a correlation between HOF and ATG. The only other alternative is for unique achievement that defies belief.
I reckon an ATG should apply to very few , simply because we are talking about being one of the best of all time, not just the era they boxed in.
I honestly think that it applies to probably less than 5 current boxers.
if you pressed me for names , I would probably only say Mayweather and Pacman for their achievements, and Maybe Hopkins more for his unique Longevity and being a World Champ at 50 and not necessarily for his boxing prowess.

Is Pacquiao an ATG? To me he is but I dont think he is or ever has been better then Floyd despite bein gin the same division for a lot of their prime careers? I agree it should be a select few considered ATGs. From this generation I have Floyd, Pac, Wlad, Viatali, Jones Jr, Hopkins but cant think of much others. I certainly dont have Hatton, Cotto, Froch etc despite all being great fighters and future HOFrs

[IamInuit]

Good Thread in light of all the recent talk. IMO , to be an ATG, the 1st requirement is to be the best in your Division for a decent period of time, or to have beaten someone who is the the best in the division and then continued to show that form . It's a phrase that's banded around all too often nowadays and I don't necessarily see a correlation between HOF and ATG. The only other alternative is for unique achievement that defies belief.
I reckon an ATG should apply to very few , simply because we are talking about being one of the best of all time, not just the era they boxed in.
I honestly think that it applies to probably less than 5 current boxers.
if you pressed me for names , I would probably only say Mayweather and Pacman for their achievements, and Maybe Hopkins more for his unique Longevity and being a World Champ at 50 and not necessarily for his boxing prowess.

Is Pacquiao an ATG? To me he is but I dont think he is or ever has been better then Floyd despite bein gin the same division for a lot of their prime careers? I agree it should be a select few considered ATGs. From this generation I have Floyd, Pac, Wlad, Viatali, Jones Jr, Hopkins but cant think of much others. I certainly dont have Hatton, Cotto, Froch etc despite all being great fighters and future HOFrs

I suppose the criteria can be as narrow or as broad as one wants to make it however imo they have to have certain attributes and I'm not sure we can attach all that much to titles in about a 15 title era.
Plenty of all time greats(those that could compete in the top of any era) never got a belt. That was the reasoning for it fragmenting from the NBA. The line up for the title was just to long. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Now of course we have about 10 guys in every division claiming to be some kind of world champion. Same with winning records, scrutiny is needed.

You can find these attributes in one way or another in countless boxing books by both trainers and historians.

INPO

1-Smarts. The ability to think ahead of the action and stay focused under adversity.
2-Speed. To execute ones thoughts.
3-Defense
4-Accuracy. Get the most out of the above
5-Power. Exclamation point but not necessary.
6-Conditioning.
7-A set of Balls
8-Motive and discipline
9-Chin. Not an absolute necessity but desirable.
10-A trainer and good cut man.

=Success

[Beanflicker]

Pacquiao for sure is an ATG.

And if we consider Roy Jones as an active figher, he is also undisputedly an ATG.